Vice… Stop prostituting yourself to Islamophobes…

This blog entry can also be read on Huffington Post.

After a long and tiring day, I do like to unwind to less arduous activities; today, I took a rare opportunity to log in to my Facebook profile and catch up on the latest feed. Admittedly, I find Facebook to be too candid and prefer other intimate means of communication. Namely because I am that person on your friends list who is tired of seeing perfect glistening vacations taken at a time where the fifth Northern Line tube has passed and I am still stood next to the ‘rude boy’ who thinks no one can hear him listening to One Direction. Or gloating parents posting pictures of their toddler partaking in every possible activity and tagging the pictures with everyone from their family to their postman. So in a spur of the moment, and perhaps fearing the flurry of Ralph Wiggum’s infamous ‘I Choo-Choo-Choose you’ picture on Valentine’s Day; I altered my news feed to include less frivolity. And as Facebook works in algorithms, I expected to receive more posts which (supposedly) interest me.

This is where I found Vice’s latest post captioning their documentary concerning prostitution in Bangladesh. Whilst I enjoy Vice’s ‘on-the-ground’ style of citizen journalism and their insightful documentaries covering ISIS, North Korea and the 2013 demonstrations in Turkey to name a few. I do take issue with the caption as it succumbs to deliberate fear-mongering tactics employed to generate deliberate resentment against what is currently a popular pastime of the right-wing media:

“Bangladesh is one of the few Muslim nations where prostitution is legal. We visit the country’s largest brothel where human trafficking, underage prostitution, and drugs are commonplace.”

To the passing eye, it can seem an innocuous truth. Though after deliberating for a while before un-liking ‘The Independent’ for its purposefully controversial headlines to generate non-stories such as, ‘Facebook is now tracking you everywhere on the internet’ (ironically posted on Facebook…) I was disheartened to find that Vice was channelling the same technique. It seems with the rise of ISIS (whose actions are wholly politically motivated), or the reoccurring debate of how we should ethically kill defenceless animals for human consumption with the Yorkshire “halal” slaughterhouse footage (pretty sure factory farming is just as cruel) Islam bashing attracts the headlines and evidently, a flurry of Islamophobic keyboard warriors.

Taking the first statement – is Bangladesh a Muslim nation? What did Vice mean by this – Is Bangladesh predominantly a Muslim majority country or is it governed under “Shariah law” (another favourite buzzword for controversy, even though religion should never be used as a legislator to govern a country). If it is the latter, then perhaps someone forgot to mention that under the Constitution of Bangladesh in 1972, secularism is one of the four fundamental principles of the country. Although the constitution does establish Islam as the state religion, it does allow for religious freedom; meaning “Shariah law” is not to be seen as a governing authority for civil or criminal cases in Bangladesh. Rather, after seceding from Pakistan in 1971, and British legislation applying there, the Bangladesh legal system is part based on English common law. However, keeping in line with the founding principle of secularism, marital disputes are settled according to the religious affiliation of the person in question. This means, the large majority of marital cases will dealt with under Islamic principles (as Bangladesh makes up 90.4% of the population.) Similarly, for the remaining 9.6% there are alternative courts to settle a martial case.

Concerning prostitution, keyboard warrior number 1 is adamant that only ‘Islamic’ countries have a high rate of prostitution. Despite said captions found on Vice having an East and West narrative, similar observations on the rate of prostitution can be made closer to home. A UN report identifies the USA as having no less than 300,000 child prostitutes, with social chaos rather than poverty being a causing factor. Further, the US Justice Department for Exploitation of children states that if a pimp has 4-6 girls within his occupancy, he can generate $150 – $200,000 each year, with child exploitation taking place in 137 nations. Contrary to popular belief, in the UK, soliciting or running brothels are illegal, but selling sex as an individual is not. 31 European countries haven’t made prostitution illegal, which reiterates it to be a global problem, free from association of colour, creed or nationality, rather than the actions of the ‘insidious Muslims in the far East’.

The world is full of polar opposites, good and evil, yin-yang, free thought or just plain bigotry and ignorance. Just as much as sex sells, so does controversy. No doubt it is easy to engage with a wider audience if you provoke a controversial message. In the new millennial, this can be achieved fairly easily by having even the slightest orientalist theme (Katy Perry did it.) Just maybe, if Vice could engage less with deliberate provocative one-liners and focus on what they do best; engaging with stories and people who are airbrushed out of society, then we can focus more on the story itself to challenge authority and push for change.

Here come the Greens…

You can also read this entry on Huffington Post.

General election year is always an exciting year in politics as party campaigns holds a certain level of captivity. Who could forget 1997’s campaign of ‘New Labour, New Danger’, where Tony Blair was given ‘demon eyes’ proliferated by the Conservative party in response to Labour putting up taxes. 2005 had its notoriety through Labour being over shadowed by the Iraq war, where Gordon Brown stepped in to give high prominence to Labour’s focus on the economy. Or in 2010, where we saw the rise (and later fall) of the Liberal Democrats; particularly for their popular but quickly diminished tuition fee policy.

The rise of the Liberal Democrats in 2010, shows a reoccurrence in this year’s coming election, the rhetoric of a political party which simply gives the message of the people. In the build up to this year’s election, we have seen the rise of UKIP, where despite their ‘mix-n-match’ manifesto, analysts and commentators are still deciphering the reason for their rise to British politics. Their success includes a win at last year’s European elections and saw the deflection of two MPs to their party, where one chose the impeccable timing of the party conference season to make his move. As UKIP has been inundated with yet another racist scandal, the inappropriate (and factually incorrect) comment on multiculturalism in France (hint: laïcité) and Jon Trickett’s letter demanding clarity on their position for NHS funding has seen UKIP voices temporarily silenced.

On Monday, the Green Party unveiled their new campaign poster in Westminster, boasting a rich, emerald green where the MP of Brighton Pavillion Caroline Lucas and party leader Natalie Bennett stand, both with beaming smiles and the tagline: What are you afraid of boys? – I like it. With its abstract level of feminism and challenging the notation that parliament is full of ‘middle-class white men’, its deeper message conveys the far-left’s alternative to the party of the people. Despite Brighton having the lowest rates of recycling, their message of looking after people and the planet seems an honest alternative to the precarious choice voters would have to make with mainstream parties. This is reflected in the sudden rise of Green membership and although David Cameron is potentially eating his words for them to take part in a TV debate, the party still has work to do to transform those members into party activists, but for the Greens it is a step in the right direction.

But why the sudden surge in membership from the Greens, and surely when one succeeds another declines? The billionaire Lord Ashcroft had the Greens on 8% and now on 11%. According to a sceptic May 2015, 1% of the support for the Greens come from 18-24 year olds; showing that previous Liberal Democrat supporters are now going green. Further, a recent publication undertaken by Ipsos MORI indicates that over a quarter of Labour voters believe that the party will be cutting spending by too much if they gain office after the general election. Despite Sadiq Khan’s ‘anti-green’ campaign backfiring and Labour dismissing it as an ‘upper-middle class lifestyle choice’; is this enough for members to opt for a party who once declared a meat-free day? Not likely. What is more likely is the previous rhetoric of voters looking to political parties to stop with political language and to identify and implement policies supporting them and protecting the public interest, much to Labour’s detriment. This includes, the Green Party holding a clear stance on the EU referendum, rather than Labour setting face against it. They have also set out clear detriments of the prospective TTIP, which they promise to resist, compared to Labour who give unsolicited economic benefits.
In other words, in 2010 it was the Liberal Democrats who gained popularity for being the party who were different and synonymizing policies with people. They gained the youth’s vote and managed to change a-political people into voting citizens. As it was short-lived through the notable policy of tuition fees, it reiterates a reoccurring theme found amongst citizens voting for alternative parties; a lack of trust. Even with Labour claiming their public spending has been refined with a fine comb and Conservatives matching Labour’s mansion tax through a reformed stamp duty tax; Britain’s economic optimism has fallen since the Autumn statement. Even with the current government refusing to admit that they will compromise the NHS through privatisation, Labour were the perpetrators of introducing PFI contracts; reflecting the public’s justifiable scepticism to mainstream parties and flirting with the prospect of voting for an alternative party.

With reality trumping over promises, what makes this year’s election different to others is the appearance of the alternative and rather than choosing from three larger parties, there are now 7 parties to be watching over. For mainstream parties, the alternative certainly creates a hindrance to their campaign being so close to the election, however, for Labour, it should force them to be firm and committed to their policies, rather than allowing the Greens outbid them. Although for now a temporary vote for the Greens isn’t returned with a Labour comment, but it does give the opportunity for voters to ask for more commitment from their party and it is through trust and honest discussion that success after the election is achieved.

Unemployment May Be Down, But Unpaid Internships Keep Underemployment Up

This blog entry can also be read on Huffington Post 

I would like to congratulate the Conservative government for the latest figures published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) identifying that unemployment has fallen 6.2% since 2008, the largest drop since 1984. I am sure this will be another ‘notch’ in the government’s election campaign for 2015, which we will hear about in the coming months, along with reducing the deficit left by the last… (I don’t think I need to complete this sentence, I’m sure you have heard it many times before).

A recent publication by the House of Commons, shows that the unemployment rate for 16-24 year olds is down 4.5% and long-term youth unemployment is down 77,000, both on the previous year respectively. To rebut the argument put forth by analysts that the figures have only fallen due to an increase in part time work; the ONS evidence that even underemployment is down by 66,000. Though the figures are to be commended, underemployment is heavily rife amongst graduates taking on internships alongside part-time work, in the hope it will lead them to their chosen career. But as the job market is so fierce, are organisations that provide internships helping candidates to compete or are they exploiting the growing need to becompetitive?

Working for free: experience or exploitation?

Based on the analysis of LinkedIn who analysed 300m profiles, the Economistidentified certain sectors that provide permanent employment for interns; namely finance. This can be compared to internships in charities or NGOs where interns are less likely to be offered employment. Firms and organisations are aware that internships are a lucrative way to keep costs down and provide keen graduates with experience to help them on their way to a white-collar position. Comparing this against a salaried employee, it is weighted against benefits such as pensions, health care and maternity leave.
An appealing alternative are unpaid internships, which are increasingly becoming the norm, not only in the UK but in America too where in 2010 the figure for journalism students finding paid internships fell to 34%, from 57% years previously. HM Revenue and Customs have recognised a growing exploitation from organisations recruiting unpaid interns in return for completing qualified work, with no prospect of future employment and are encouraging employers to pay the minimum wage. A positive step indeed, however, the national minimum wage contains an exemption for charities, where workers are not entitled to a minimum wage if they are classed as a volunteer. Though this would legally entitle charities to accept help voluntarily without incurring a substantial loss on funding, there is a growing concern whether this exemption is being exploited by large charities to circumvent paying them. The Charted Institute of Personnel Development published a report which recommends that there should be tighter guidelines on how a volunteer is defined, or that the employer should advertise the duration of time they are expected to work on all graduate vacancies – failing to do so would trigger a training wage.
Despite payment, many graduates do feel their internship was a valuable experience, as they receive opportunities to network and meet professionals within the field. But because it is a valuable experience, charitable organisations should not take advantage of the legality behind being a volunteer and show their appreciation through payment, to ensure that the individual feels their self-worth during their time as an intern. To highlight this a poll was conducted by the Guardian, showing that 67% of unpaid interns felt exploited or undervalued.

Social mobility

This of course is subject to the individual being able to live in the required location to work and by having an exemption from payment, it heavily reduces social mobility. According to a YouGov survey in 2011, 39% of people who were offered an internship had to turn it down because they were not able to work for free. Though youth unemployment has decreased, many 18-24 year olds are still eager to have a competitive edge in the job market and short term unpaid positions provide an opportunity to the fortunate few who are able to accommodate themselves during this time. Cancer Research recruit interns on a rolling basis throughout the year, giving them vital experience in various departments and in return they would have the opportunity for flexibility so they can work part time or study simultaneously. Though this option is common for large charities, it still creates a barrier for highly capable individuals who do not have the opportunity to reside in a particular location for no pay. Take for example Urban Outfitters, where in 2013 £2.7 billion was made on sales and revenue, yet ludicrously still advertised for an unpaid internship lasting 9 months, covering only lunch and travel expenses. Since renting a room in Central London can cost roughly around £500 per month, I strongly feel this opportunity is unfairly targeted and restricted to the few who are able to endure this exploitation-for-non-fiscal-means for such a long period of time.

An internship can be a crucial learning curve for a student or graduate, bridging the gap between theoretical work and practical application. It is also an investment in the talent of tomorrow, where today’s interns can be tomorrow’s employers. If the internship is carefully constructed with a clear objective and fiscal reward reflecting the rising inflation of living costs, only then can the barriers of circumstantial privilege be broken. There is a great opportunity for the next government to make a real change for future interns by creating a fairer society, where payment for labour is mandatory, the definition of volunteer is better defined and unpaid internships are a thing of the past.

Now all that is left to do is to convince certain MPs in government to actually pay their interns…

Modern design and a lack of privacy

You can also read this blog entry on Huffington Post

The self-proclamation of freedom is a cherished right we have in a modern democratic country where we are able to express religious values, disenfranchisement with the Monarchy, criticism of the government and an expression of individual identity without persecution. As cherished as these values are, they are not universal, with many countries taking values associated within the spectrum of freedom and limiting it to the private sphere. This creates a distinction between the public and private sphere; for as long as the individual is conducting their affairs in private, it is deemed acceptable until it’s made public. But what would happen when the boundaries between public and private become intertwined with each other? Especially in the modern era, where speech and expressions are not just verbal, but replicated through our digitised identities which are easily traceable. So has modern design created such a transparency to our lives that the distinction between what is public and what is private no longer exist?

The political philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote extensively concerning the private and public sphere, proclaiming simply that actions conducted in public is subject to censure and actions conducted in private are at the individuals own responsibility. The portion of a person’s conduct creates a spectrum whilst creating the distinction of liberty. Where conduct affects the individual’s life choices, provided the individual is free to do so would create the pinnacle of human liberty. Creating an autonomous spiral of free thought and consciousness to partake in choices according to our own definition of the good – whether viably practical to another or not. But in modern society where technology has advanced to such an extent that the lines between digital and reality are blurred, how does one distinguish what is private or public? Take for example, the recent controversy of the Facebook group ‘Women Who Eat on Tubes’; it was brandished as a safe haven for misogyny, a neo-form of ‘stranger-bullying‘, and a UN rapporteur using the group to emphasise her criticism of UK’s ‘sexist culture‘.

I digress from the debate surrounding this controversy, however, the model of the group works due to the rapid encouragement of citizen journalism and it has become controversial because the true contention lends itself to having a lack of privacy in the public space. We are increasingly being encouraged to be more autonomous by being responsible for our actions, being brave enough to report more crimes – coaxed with the blanket of anonymity; it makes public cynicism a natural by-product of citizen journalism. If by expressing personal criticism concerning a debate or article on media platforms, shows a proliferation that we as autonomous individuals perpetrate the very notation being criticised; creative expression. Discourses, criticisms, articulation and analysis’ are a plethora of art forms, where different perspectives and preferences are expressed in different segments of discourse, much to the advancement of knowledge and debate.

Being private in public: an oxymoron

Design and architecture have increasingly become more common to initiate a form of transparency between two worlds. As a child, I remember enthusiastically playing video games on my computer, a shield of glass separating me from the virtual reality posed before me. Through design and architecture, transparency has been replicated in our physical world; office buildings, often shielded by glass initiate a separatist world of us and them. In technology, WhatsApp, iMessage and Facebook chat have become increasingly transparent in ‘message attendance’, either by informing us the message has been read or a simple ellipsis appearing, indicating a response from the recipient. Whether our actions are personal, professional or financial – they are increasingly being implicated online, archived and easily replicated. Personal activities in the physical world are digitised by the ubiquitous CCTV cameras, data collection by retailers or through social media by friends tagging photos of other friends. Further, on our smartphones in order to utilise an app to its full advantage, we knowingly share our location, becoming an unfortunate price we pay for greater comfort and utilisation; making our movements inescapable.

When challenging the lack of privacy we individuals have in the public sphere, we are taunted with the remark that we should not have anything to fear if we are doing nothing wrong. But the wrong lies not in our actions, but in the breach of our trust for agencies monopolising upon our freedoms. Discussions of privacy are often centred on the containment and control of it and how companies seek to use our data and images. But in a modern society where there is a collaboration of both our physical and digital entities, the balance of morality and social freedom are often neglected and quite often, disregarded by those victimised by its effects.

Design is a reflection upon a society’s perception of private and public life. A public culture of parks, bazars and malls, are enticing to build a cinematic life for citizens and economically beneficial for the state. However, design is also an agent of change, making the fine line between private and public more visible and highlighting the significance of what information people share. Most importantly, in an era where technology is collapsing the boundaries that maintained our digital and physical privacy, we must understand how design can promote tolerance to support people, not be of detriment to them. As the physical and digital world becomes more public, it is only with heightened knowledge and respect for individual autonomy that we can maintain the freedom we value in privacy.